Do you have any particular reason why at least one person voting for Nanook needs to be scum, or is this a completely baseless smudge?
They were both green. I’d assume that means they were both…uh…
…just whose side are we on, anyway?
And we’re off to a flyer! One forced claim, one unforced claim, two dead town power roles*. My friends, we’ve got them exactly where we want them.
I’m going to pick up where I left off last night:
vote Zeriel
The full post with my reasoning is here. The short version is:
[ul]
[li]Pushed vote-leaders for role-claims[/li][li]Fence-sitting on voting Nanook[/li][li]Offered no defence to Kat’s vote against him but…[/li][li]Unvoted under pressure[/li][li]Broke promise of unvoting only with new vote[/li][li]Piggy-backed JSexton’s no-Nanook-vote arguments, even though they contradicted his own previously stated arguments[/li][/ul]
*On preview - this hasn’t been made 100% clear.
Peeker
Role Name: SDSAB member
Power: Watcher
All deaths thus far have been of players aligned town.
As it’s so quiet, I’m going to indulge myself by reposting my suggestions for dealing with the Random Nightfall:
Zsofia had problems with my suggestion about not voting for the vote leader:
I agree that encouraging people not to vote under certain circumstances is a sub-optimal situation - it’s merely the best compromise I can come up with to stop outing town roles. Here’s what I would suggest:
[ul]
[li]Do vote for the person you find scummiest unless…[/li][li]That person is already vote leader (say, 2 votes in the lead)[/li][li]In that case, publically state a colour-coded FOS of the vote-leader, giving reasons just as you would for a vote[/li][li]FOS-ing the leader is the only excuse for not having an active vote[/li][/ul]
The last point is based on the point I raised earlier: unvoting the leader promotes No.2 into the danger seat. Unless you actually want them to be there, you’re putting on pressure for another role-claim needlessly. Either vote for them explicitly, or tell us who else you find scummy. If you *really *have no other suspects, current experience suggests that we’ll have some lurkers who could use a nudge.
Hopefully the above will help us keep track of FOS’s as we would votes. Note that this is not an excuse for lurkers to materialise, say “Yeah, I agree with X about VoteLeader, here’s my FOS” and then recloak for the rest of the Day. This is no less suspicious than any other unjustified bandwagon vote, and should be treated as such.
Well, a Mafia game when I’m not immediately suspicious for playing fast and loose on Day One wouldn’t be a Mafia game.
Eh. As for Kat’s vote and reasoning, I had re-read the thread and subsequent posts by Hero made me realize he wasn’t doing what I thought he was doing, then I dunno. I posted the angry defense of my vote before I re-read and realized I’d totally misread Hero.
As for pushing Nanook for a role-claim, how exactly is it you can want people to talk their way out of votes without claiming and yet yell at me for saying I want someone to be “eloquent”–I think you’ll agree that it takes a lot more eloquence to refute arguments than just whip out a claim–and I didn’t call for a Nanook claim until it was clear, at least to me, that the only reason he WASN’T claiming was spite–since that’s pretty much what he said.
I’m barely inclined to give the “piggyback” thing a response. When someone makes a quality statement, I refuse to see anything wrong with agreeing with it.
Look, I’m playing this one exactly the same as I’ve played every other Mafia game I’ve been in. I’ve been town every game. I get these suspicions from someone every game. I get lynched for fumblefingering or fumble-braining something most games. If it looks scummy to you, so be it.
Here’s where I worry–not voting for the vote leader. We already know there’s a town power claimed that can lengthen days. If there’s a scum power that can shorten days, or some other means for the scum to predict day ends with any efficacy, keeping a low differential between the leader and second-place candidates is ASKING for them to manipulate the vote at a crucial time.
I’m not suspicious of you for playing fast and loose. I’m suspicous of you because you seem to be fence-sitting and changing your tune under pressure.
You also said you’d only unvote him if you found someone scummier - but then just unvoted him. Now it may well be that you did re-read and realise you’d completely misinterpreted his posts but you didn’t tell us that. What you said was:
It’s quite a volte-face and even with an after-the-fact explanation, it still looks suspicious, frankly.
I’ll agree that “geteloquent” is an ambiguous phrase - that’s what caught my attention. When you say that a player is almost certain to die unless they “get eloquent”, it looks a lot like you’re piling on the pressure.
This is what you first said about Nanook’s probable alignment:
I think it’s fair to say that this means you think he’s more likely to be anti-town than town. Here is what **JSexton **said:
My bolding. Here is your response to that:
You didn’t think the odds were good that he was town. You thought the odds were good that he was not. Yet you say that this sums up your reasons for not voting. There isn’t anything wrong with agreeing with good points; doing so when you appear to have earlier disagreed with them looks like you’re trying to find cover.
I’m not minded to change my vote yet.
I didn’t say that one of them needs to be scum. What I said was, if at least one scum voted for Nanook, then (by process of elimination) that scum is likely to be either you or Hero From Sector 7G. But feel free to ignore conditional words, such as if and likely, and set up false dichotomies.
Why do I think at least one person voting for Nanook might be scum? We started the game with 23 players. Some of them didn’t vote at all. Others didn’t cast a vote for a long time. 3 people didn’t have a vote on the Day-end vote count. (I’m not going to list those people, because apparently doing so is considered bullying)
Anyway, 7 people voting for the same person is one third of the total number of players (because not all 23 voted). Why is it so unlikely that at least one of them might be scum? Is it wrong to think that scum will try to vote for different people, and hide their vote among town votes, so that their vote doesn’t stand out? Also, someone up-thread mentioned that scum might want to vote for Nanook, so that during later Days they wouldn’t be able to save him from a Mod kill.
Incidentally, now that I’ve re-read the order of the votes, I see that the two of you were the first to vote for Nanook. It means that at the time you voted, hiding among town wouldn’t have been your motivation.
Take my observation for what it was: I found something interesting in the vote counts and wanted to share it.
On a completely separate note…
As I said, it will take three votes/unvotes to promote No.2 to vote-leader, assuming our threshold for voting is set at 2 votes. If we see just such a pattern of voting immediately before day ends, that should stand out and we’ll want to hear from the suspects the next Day. If it’s not immediately before day ends, that leaves room for anyone with an FOS to turn it into a real vote, thus re-establishing the original vote-leader as town’s lynch candidate. I agree that this is more difficult for LyLo; perhaps we could make an exception for this instance.
Incidentally, I am very reluctant to base any analysis on **Santo’s **claim. We’ve got no confirmation at all and for all we know it was pulled ex ano. In fact, one of the thing’s I’d like to see toDay is some justification from **Santo **about why we should trust him.
vote ok11
So today you’ve been basically spinning a suspicion out of candyfloss–“IF there was a scum voting for Nanook, it was either BOOZY or HERO…not that there HAD to have been a scum voting for him, but since everyone else who voted for him is confirmed, then IF there was a scum it was BOOZY OR HERO.”
That’s crap.
And hey, thanks for reminding me that yesterday you were just throwing out a list of names of people who WERE NOT VOTING RIGHT NOW. Despite the fact that at least one of those people had voted and was between votes, and in point of fact we had no idea how close we were to the deadline. Some people may remember that I have views on lists upon which I appear for no acceptable reason. =P
It’s the LyLo use of this tactic that bothers me most–it only has to work once. Furthermore, since it’s a closed setup, we also have no good idea of WHEN we’re at lynch or lose, so making an exception is going to require some amount of clairvoyance on the part of whoever’s calling the shots. I don’t believe in clairvoyance.
I am only allowing for the possibility that someone or someones may be able to alter the day ending time. I have no opinion on Santo’s claim except inasmuch as it opens the possibility for discussion.
We don’t know when we’ll hit LyLo, but I’m prepared to bet quite a lot of money that it won’t be toDay, toMorrow or the Day after. If we can get that far without provoking, say, half-a-dozen role-claims then I’ll be more than happy to review.
Well, balls first three kills go to the scum.
We need to look at a way around these role claims because scum are obviously targeting people with claims on the table, even if they are soft claims. I’m not sure how to prevent people from claiming, if we go with am’s FOS idea it will end up the same because people will still have to claim to avoid the lynch and if we wait to put votes on someone then which ever person is switched to will have to immediately due to the random day end. This will put us in the same situation as yesterDay.
I think the best way to handle this is similar to the approach that Santo has taken, a soft claim by people with testable powers. If we get just enough information to test them then we can evaluate the claims and move on. I think this is different from a mass claim because we will still have places for our power roles to hide, the unverifiable roles, but we will still shrink the pool we are hunting scum in. The biggest difference between this and Santo’s is I’m not sure his claim is verifiable.
I really have no opinion right now about who to vote for since ether top three from yesterDay are off the table so I’m probably going to start out with a lynch the lurker, once I figure out who the biggest lurkers were.
So, Oredigger. Care to talk about your activities last night?
I’ve said my piece. If it’s not good enough for you, I don’t know what else to tell you.
But, Zeriel, that’s not what you said you said I was a town power [that] claimed. At least, that’s how I parsed it. How do you know I’m town?
Are you kidding me?
Er, you claimed to be a townie with that power. Really, you can move “claimed” to the front of the phrase to make it “claimed town power” if it makes you feel better. I don’t think my meaning is changed.